Doe v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents et al
ORDER DENYING 54 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Their Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JANE DOE 1, et al.,
Civil Case No. 21-10649
Honorable Linda V. Parker
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF REGENTS, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING
On October 6, 2021, Defendants Melody Werner, Kyle Martin, Robert
Heighes, and Daniel Karrick (“Moving Defendants”) moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 53.) The Moving Defendants also filed, on the
same date, a motion to “expedite” the briefing on their motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 54.) In fact, the Moving Defendants are only asking the Court to require the
parties to follow the motion briefing schedule in the Local Rules for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
As this Court states in its Practice Guidelines—which it advises all counsel
early in a case to familiarize themselves with—“[t]he Court adheres to the briefing
schedule and page limits set forth in Local Rule 7.1.”1 See
The Court also adheres to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide a
mechanism for seeking an extension of a deadline when one is needed and the
applicable standard for deciding whether to grant or deny such a request. These
are the very rules and standards on which the courts relied in the cases the Moving
Defendants cite in their brief. See, e.g., Schneider v. Ameriquest MDL Settlement
Admin., No. 11-cv-14254, 2012 WL 1721257, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2012)
(applying Rule 6(b)’s “good cause” standard when denying the plaintiff’s motion
for more time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation); Commerce Benefits Grp., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 1:07-cv2036, 2008 WL 440373, at * (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2008) (same with respect to the
plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time to conduct discovery, file a sur reply, and
produce an expert report).
It is unnecessary for parties to file motions asking the Court to adhere to
already applicable rules. Such motions are an unnecessary expenditure of judicial
The Court also strictly enforces the rule’s requirement that parties seek
concurrence prior to filing motions. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). The Court
appreciates that the Moving Defendants adhered to this requirement before filing
the current motion.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Expedite Briefing (ECF No. 54) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 7, 2021
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?